DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment, filed 12/09/2025, has been entered. Claims 18, 20, 23, and 28 have been amended. Claims 15-17 and 19 have been cancelled. Claims 18 and 20-35 are now pending in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
PNG
media_image1.png
612
960
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 18-23 and 25-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Golubkov (US-20200058973-A1) in view of Shimizu (US-20230207955-A1).
PNG
media_image2.png
308
1009
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 18,
Golubkov teaches a battery pack (Fig. 6, 100; [0064]) comprising: a plurality of battery modules (Fig. 6, 90; [0064]); a pack frame (Fig. 6, 75, 60; [0064], wherein the cover and housing both comprise the pack frame) that houses (Fig. 6) the plurality of battery modules (90). However, Golubkov fails to teach a flame arrester formed on a side surface part of the pack frame wherein the flame arrester comprises a porous structure, the porous structure comprises a plurality of tubes, each having an empty interior, and the flame arrester is formed on an outer surface of the pack frame. Shimizu teaches a flame arrester (Fig. 8, heat exchanger 44; [0043], which is configured to dissipate, via extending the length of contact [0042], flammable gas [0002], and thus is also configured to dissipate flames in the case of combustion) wherein the flame arrester comprises a porous structure (Fig. 9, recesses 46; [0046]), the porous structure comprises a plurality of tubes ([0046], “rectangular tube shape”), each having an empty interior (Fig. 9, wherein the space inside tubes 46 is empty). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify the battery pack of Golubkov by attaching the heat exchanger of Shimizu to a side surface part (Golubkov, annotated Fig. 6, “side surface part”), such that the flame arrester is formed on (see https://www.thefreedictionary.com/ON, used to indicate proximity) an outer surface (annotated Fig. 6, left surface opposite “side surface part”) of the pack frame (Fig. 6, 75, 60; [0064]) in order to improve safety (Shimizu, [0043]).
Regarding claim 20,
Golubkov in view of Shimizu teaches the battery pack of claim 18 (see rejection of claim 18 above), wherein the plurality of tubes ([0046], “rectangular tube shape”) are coupled in horizontal and vertical directions (Fig. 9, wherein the plurality of tubes extend horizontally and vertically, and wherein the tubes 46 are integrally formed with and thus coupled to 44).
Regarding claim 21,
Golubkov in view of Shimizu teaches the battery pack of claim 20 (see rejection of claim 20 above), wherein: the plurality of tubes have a same size (Fig. 9, tubes 46 of the same size) and shape (Fig. 9, tubes 46 of the same shape) and each tube has a rectangular parallelepiped shape (Fig. 9 tubes 46; [0046], “rectangular tube shape”) of which an inside is empty (Fig. 9, wherein the space inside tubes 46 is empty).
Regarding claim 22,
Golubkov in view of Shimizu teaches the battery pack of claim 20 (see rejection of claim 20 above), wherein: each tube (Shimizu; [0046], “tube”) includes a metal (Shimizu, [0031], “heat exchanger is… metal”). While the metal heat exchanger of Shimizu refers to a different embodiment of Shimizu, a rationale to support a conclusion that a claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. (see MPEP §§ 2143 and 2143.02).
Regarding claim 23,
Golubkov in view of Shimizu teaches the battery pack of claim 20 (see rejection of claim 20 above), wherein: the porous structure (see above) is assembled with a housing (Shimizu, Fig. 4B, 28; [0034], wherein heat exchanger is housed in 28), and the housing is coupled to a hole (Golubkov, Fig. 6, 76; [0064]) in the side surface part (Golubkov, Fig. 6, interior surface of pack frame near exhaust hole 76, see rejection of claim 18 above) of the pack frame (Golubkov, Fig. 6, 60, 75, see rejection of claim 18 above). While the housing of the heat exchanger of Shimizu refers to a different embodiment of Shimizu, a rationale to support a conclusion that a claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. (see MPEP §§ 2143 and 2143.02).
Regarding claim 25,
PNG
media_image3.png
612
960
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
308
585
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Golubkov in view of Shimizu teaches the battery pack of claim 18 (see rejection of claim 18 above), further comprising a first partition wall (annotated Fig. 6, “first partition wall”), adjacent to the plurality of battery modules (annotated Fig. 6, 90, wherein the first partition wall is next to modules 90), wherein the first partition wall is in parallel with the side surface part (annotated Fig. 6, wherein the “first partition wall” is parallel with the side surface part) of the pack frame (Fig. 6, 75, 60; see rejection of claim 18 above) on which the flame arrester is formed (Shimizu, 24, see rejection of claim 18 above).
Regarding claim 26,
Golubkov in view of Shimizu teaches the battery pack of claim 25 (see rejection of claim 25 above), further comprising a second partition wall (annotated Fig. 6, “second partition wall”) between the plurality of battery modules (Fig. 6, wherein at least a portion of the second partition wall spans between the leftmost and rightmost surfaces of 90).
Regarding claim 27,
PNG
media_image5.png
625
592
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Golubkov in view of Shimizu teaches the battery pack of claim 26 (see rejection of claim 26 above), further comprising a third partition wall (annotated Fig. 6, “third partition wall”) adjacent to the second partition wall (annotated Fig. 6, second partition wall), wherein the third partition wall is formed at opposite end parts (annotated Fig. 4, “top end” and “bottom end” which are opposite each other) of the second partition wall (annotated Fig. 6, “second partition wall”).
Regarding claim 28,
Golubkov in view of Shimizu teaches the battery pack of claim 27 (see rejection of claim 27 above), wherein: a shape of the third partition wall is a triangular (Fig. 6, 70, wherein 70, and thus the third partition wall, resembles a triangle) column (annotated Fig. 4, “third partition wall”, wherein 70 is uniformly elongated in the form of a column) having a triangular cross section (Fig. 6, which depicts the cross section of 70 which resembles a triangle and is thus triangular).
Regarding claim 29,
Golubkov in view of Shimizu teaches the battery pack of claim 27 (see rejection of claim 27 above), further comprising a fourth partition wall (annotated Fig. 6, “fourth partition wall”) formed adjacent to the flame arrester (Shimizu, 44; see rejection of claim 18 above), wherein the fourth partition wall is a triangular (Fig. 6, 70, wherein 70, and thus the fourth partition wall, resembles a triangle) column (Fig. 5, wherein 70, and thus the fourth partition wall, is uniformly elongated in the form of a column) having a triangular cross section (Fig. 6, which depicts the cross section of 70 which resembles a triangle triangular) in which one vertex (annotated Fig. 6, leftmost vertex of “fourth partition wall”) is disposed toward (annotated Fig. 6, wherein the leftmost vertex of the triangular cross section of the fourth partition wall is disposed towards the first surface part and thus the flame arrester of Golubkov in view of Shimizu) the flame arrester (Shimizu, 44; see rejection of claim 18 above).
Regarding claim 30,
Golubkov in view of Shimizu teaches a device ([0004], “electric vehicle”) comprising the battery pack of claim 18 (see rejection of claim 18 above).
Regarding claim 31,
Golubkov in view of Shimizu teaches the battery pack of claim 25 (see rejection of claim 25 above), wherein a maximum length of the first partition wall (annotated Fig. 6, first wall) is greater (annotated Fig. 6, wherein the first wall is greater in length to accommodate modules 90) than a maximum length (annotated Fig. 6, “length”, wherein length is at least the maximum length along a vertical direction) of each battery module 90 of the plurality of battery modules (see annotated Fig. 6, modules 90).
Regarding claim 32,
Golubkov in view of Shimizu teaches the battery pack of claim 25 (see rejection of claim 25 above), wherein the first partition wall (annotated Fig. 6, “first partition wall”) is spaced away (annotated Fig. 6, wherein “first partition wall” and “the side surface part” where the flame arrester is placed are on opposite sides) from the flame arrester (Shimizu, 44; see rejection of claim 18 above).
Regarding claim 33,
Golubkov in view of Shimizu teaches a battery pack of claim 29 (see rejection of claim 29 above), wherein the fourth partition wall (annotated Fig. 6, “fourth partition wall”) is located closer (see annotated Fig. 6) to the flame arrester (Shimizu, 44; see rejection of claim 18 above) than the first partition wall (annotated Fig. 6, “first partition wall”).
Regarding claim 34,
Golubkov in view of Shimizu teaches battery pack of claim 29 (see rejection of claim 29), wherein the fourth partition (annotated Fig. 6, “first partition wall”) wall contacts (wherein all elements are directly or indirectly contacting) the first partition wall (annotated Fig. 6, “first partition wall”).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Golubkov (US-20200058973-A1) in view of Shimizu (US-20230207955-A1) and further in view of Li (US-20160133900-A1).
Regarding claim 24,
Golubkov in view of Shimizu teaches the battery pack of claim 23 (see rejection of claim 23 above), but fails to teach wherein: the housing includes a same material as each tube ([0031], “heat exchanger… aluminum”), because Shimizu is silent to the material of housing 28. Li teaches wherein a housing (Fig. 1 and 2, portion of 40 surrounding and thus housing rectangular tube 41; [0039], “40 can be made from…aluminum) is the same material as each tube (Fig. 2, rectangular channel 41; [0038]). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify the battery pack of Golubkov such that the housing is aluminum, as taught by Li, because Li teaches that using the same metal material can help prevent the occurrence of dissimilar metals reacting with each other (Li, [0039], “metal material as same … to prevent … forming an electrochemical cell under the condition of electrolyte and moist environment with different materials”).
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Golubkov (US-20200058973-A1) in view of Shimizu (US-20230207955-A1) and Stover (US-2296747-A).
Regarding claim 35,
Golubkov in view of Shimizu teaches the battery pack of claim 18 (see rejection of claim 18 above), but fails to teach wherein the flame arrester protrudes outside of the pack frame. Stover teaches wherein the flame arrester (Fig. 2, 10/13; see paragraph 19, 21, and 25) protrudes (see Fig. 2, wherein at least 13 protrudes) outside of the pack frame (Fig. 2, 9). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify the flame arrester to include a concave-convex baffle structure protruding outside the pack of Golubkov in view of Shimizu, as Stover suggests the baffle structure reduces electrolyte evaporation (see paragraph 25 of Stover).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/09/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the recesses of Shimizu are grooves but the present application has tubes with open ends on both sides. However, this is not persuasive, as an open-ended tube structure is not claimed. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “tube” is a shape that encompasses close-ended tubes. Furthermore, Shimizu explicitly calls the recesses of 46 tubes ([0046], “rectangular tube shape”).
Applicant argues that the flame arrester is positioned on an outer side of the pack frame, whereas Shimizu places it on an inner side. However, this is not persuasive, given the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term on to indicate proximity (see rejection of claim 1 above), the flame arrester of Shimizu may be described as on the outer side of the pack.
Applicant argues that the above reasons and the new claims overcome the rejections of record. However, this is not persuasive, as all rejections have been sustained.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL WYROUGH whose telephone number is (571)272-4806. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 10am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, TIFFANY LEGETTE can be reached on (571) 270-7078. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PAUL CHRISTIAN ST WYROUGH/Examiner, Art Unit 1728 /TIFFANY LEGETTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights